The convenience of both parties must be considered when deciding a transfer petition under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

S.S.Rathor, J.

1. This application under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been instituted by the wife for the transfer of a divorce petition under Sections 12 (d)/13 and 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act, filed by her husband in the competent Court at Jagadhri to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Ferozepur where she is presently residing in her parental house.

2. The marriage between the parties took place on 4-10-1989. Unfortunately, soon after the marriage strained relationships developed between the parties resulting in their separation and thereafter, petitioner started living with her parents at Ferozepur. On 1-8-1990, the petitioner filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure which is pending in the Court at Ferozepur. Simultaneously, she also filed a criminal complaint at Ferozepur under Sections 406/498-A of the Indian Penal Code, which is also pending for adjudication. The respondent-husband also filed a petition for anullment of marriage and divorce under Sections 12 (d)/13 read with Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act on 8-8-1990 at Jagadhri. With the pendency of these proceedings instituted by either of the party, the divorce petition filed an pending in the Court at Jagadhri is sought to be transferred to Ferozepur only on the ground that the petitioner is living with her parents and is unable to persue the case against her at Jagadhri which is at about a distance of 300 kms. from Ferozepur. It has also been alleged that the defence of the petitioner in the proceedings at Jagadhri would be prejudiced as petitioner being lady, would not be able to travel on each date of hearing and to incur heavy travelling expenditure. It is also alleged that in the interest of justice, petition filed by the husband be transferred to some Court at Ferozepur where he application for maintenance and criminal complaint as detailed above, had been filed prior to the divorce petition in question.

3. The respondent has strongly opposed the application. In the written statement, respondent has alleged that soon after leaving Jagadhri alongwith her uncle on 10-7-1990, the petitioner moved a petition under Section 125 Cr. P.C as well as the aforesaid criminal complaint within twenty days. It is also alleged that in the divorce petition filed by him at Jagadhri, the petitioner has been served and in spite of five adjournments, no written statement has been filed and is even avoiding appearance in the Court for reconciliation as ordered by the Court and no case for transfer is made out in terms of Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

4. Mr. Hari Om Sharma, Counsel for Vinay Kumar respondent, on his clients instructions, present in Courts made a statement at Bar that the respondent is a student of LL.B. Ist Year at Kurukshetra University. He is son of a labourer and with great difficulty, his father is imparting education to his son. It has also been stated that the divorce is being sought by the respondent on a very grave allegation and his well-founded apprehension are that the petitioner was pregnant at the time of marriage which fact was Concealed both from the 2. respondent and his parents. Due to this fact, relationships worsened between the parties resulting in their separation and the petitioner was taken away by her uncle. Because of the graveness of allegation, the whole family of the petitioner and her relations at Ferozepur have become inimical to the respondent and as such, the transfer of the divorce, petition would result in personal insecurity and hardship to the respondent and his material witnesses.

5. The petitioners Counsel has challenged the correctness of the allegations in the divorce petition but it is not disputed that the allegations are of the nature as alleged above. Be that as it may, I am not required to comment either way on this aspect of the matter. But the fact remains that petition for divorce has been filed on very grave allegations. It is for the trial